41–50 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's dangerous to bandy around statements like "most cops are good cops" for which you don't have evidence. Instead, you might say "Some cops are good cops".
How is it "dangerous"? I'm expressing my personal opinion on a relatively obscure site on the internet. It is one of the least dangerous activities I can imagine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it "dangerous"? I'm expressing my personal opinion on a relatively obscure site on the internet. It is one of the least dangerous activities I can imagine.
timv: the OP is warning people to avoid talking to cops. "Most cops are good" is a very common sentiment that is even inculcated in kids growing up attending public schools. This widespread common belief contributes to people speaking naively to police and thereby getting themselves in trouble. That is what I meant by dangerous. I didn't explain this in my reply to mikeash because it seemed to me that mikeash was bei…
Even if they're the nicest person you've ever met.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please read the article. Whether you're guilty or not, you can be made guilty on various other charges from a simple conversation.
But only if you lie during that conversation. Edit: this is literally what happens in Ken's hypothetical story. If the subject didn't lie about the phone call, they couldn't be charged with a false statement.
If the prosecutor wants to push it, almost any interaction with the police can be made to seem incriminating.
The question that I have every time I read about something similar to this is not about the law itself, but about the human who's applying the law: how/ why/ what is the line of thought that would lead them to (supposedly) knowingly do something like this? I realize that processes, bureaucracy and generally abstraction can allow people to do less than desirable behaviours, but I can't quite figure out which abstracti…
I would say "all of the above." LEO do routinely believe that people they investigate must be guilty. They don't investigate at random, but rather are prompted by some evidence of criminal behavior. That certainly doesn't mean that you must be guilty if they investigate you, but it sets them up to believe you are. The system is set up with compartments so nobody sees the full consequences of anything and this sort of…
The question that I have every time I read about something similar to this is not about the law itself, but about the human who's applying the law: how/ why/ what is the line of thought that would lead them to (supposedly) knowingly do something like this? I realize that processes, bureaucracy and generally abstraction can allow people to do less than desirable behaviours, but I can't quite figure out which abstracti…
Put yourself in the shoes of a federal agent investigating a crime. Crimes happen all the time; they're commmitted by people who then try very hard to hide what they did. So a criminal investigator is going to treat everyone they interview with suspicion from the start. That suspicion is not a personal failing any more than a software QA tester who doesn't trust the latest build. It's inherent in that type of job. An…
The common legal advice is "do not talk to cop", which presumably because on average, you will actually get into trouble with it. So in a sense, the question was "Why would LEO cause you trouble for those technicality if you're innocent?". I mean, let's say the first innocent guy who got into the false statement trap actually just cooperate, got himself proven innocent, and the investigator let him go from the technicality, and then that's ... it, right? But I don't think that's what the story normally is (is it?). There seems to be too many stories of people getting into trouble for technicality/ trap, while committing no crime originally.
There are several explanations I can think of for the behaviour (in which LEO follow up on trap when investigating innocence), most of them are quite unsettling. Notably, if criminal are getting good to the point that investigation can't truly tell without unreasonable doubt that a criminal has committed a crime, and so has to resort to trap to convict them (which leads using trap in any case they can), then well, isn't that just mean investigation are not effective as well?
I know what we should do to (try to) protect ourselves from the current situation, I was just wondering how we get here.
TL;DR: Law trap by itself is not good, however it's a necessity. But shouldn't it be used as last resort against criminal? Why does the population has to worry about trap as SOP of criminal investigator?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've written that before on HN and got massively downmodded, hopefully that doesn't happen to you. If you are actually guilty then keep your mouth closed. But if you are not guilty then staying quiet is not necessarily to your benefit.
Your guilt doesn't matter. You can still incriminate yourself even if you have committed no crime. It sounds like grandparent didn't go to jail, so even though he calls it a "bad tactic" it seems to have worked out fine. The people who actually know this stuff, i.e. lawyers and cops, all universally advise people not to talk to the police without counsel. Never have I seen one add the qualifier "but it's fine if you'…
What's the right thing to do here? Shut up and demand a lawyer before you'll answer any questions?
You hear about a shooting in your neighborhood on the radio. Walking to the subway, you see a person with a gun run down an alley. At the subway station a cop asks you if you've seen anything suspicious.
What's the right thing to do here? Shut up and demand a lawyer before you'll answer any questions?
Personally, I don't want to live in a society in which no one helps anyone because of fear.
It's worth keeping in mind that Ken White is a defense attorney, writing from a particular perspective, which may not cover all possible situations. His advice is great if you are the subject of a criminal investigation. Most people are not subjects of criminal investigations.
Specific to traffic stops, neither officers nor attorneys recommend shutting up and demanding a lawyer as the first move. They recommend: make the officer feel safe, be polite, don't lie, and decline a search if requested.
Editing since I can't reply to rosser (what's the point of a discussion forum if I can't have a discussion?):
My point is that writing as either a defense attorney or a prosecutor, his posts take a more a narrow view of police interactions than the entirety of how someone might interact with the police. I doubt he would recommend against reporting a crime if you are the victim or a witness, for instance, or if he did, I doubt he would find many peers to agree with him.
"Keep your head down, never talk to a cop," is certainly a strategy for getting through life, but it's not necessarily globally optimal.
The general case here is: don't lie to federal agents. The easiest way to do that is to stay silent and demand a lawyer. But understand: if you're on the periphery of an investigation, you're running a chance of raising a red flag. It's well within your rights, and ultimately you can't incriminate yourself by being silent. But you could substantially add delay, frustration, and lawyer costs to the whole experience. A…
The other thing is that you could get section 1001'd for something you didn't actually say as FBI agents, for example, usually don't use recording devices and just take notes. If their notes said you said it and you don't have a witness, guess what happens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your guilt doesn't matter. You can still incriminate yourself even if you have committed no crime. It sounds like grandparent didn't go to jail, so even though he calls it a "bad tactic" it seems to have worked out fine. The people who actually know this stuff, i.e. lawyers and cops, all universally advise people not to talk to the police without counsel. Never have I seen one add the qualifier "but it's fine if you'…
You witness a mugging. You get a good look at the person who did it. A cop comes up to you and says "did you see what happened?" What's the right thing to do here? Shut up and demand a lawyer before you'll answer any questions? You hear about a shooting in your neighborhood on the radio. Walking to the subway, you see a person with a gun run down an alley. At the subway station a cop asks you if you've seen anything…
It's also worth keeping in mind that he's a former federal prosecutor. He knows of what he speaks, and you would do very well to heed his counsel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
timv: the OP is warning people to avoid talking to cops. "Most cops are good" is a very common sentiment that is even inculcated in kids growing up attending public schools. This widespread common belief contributes to people speaking naively to police and thereby getting themselves in trouble. That is what I meant by dangerous. I didn't explain this in my reply to mikeash because it seemed to me that mikeash was bei…
The good cop:bad cop ratio is utterly orthogonal to whether or not it's a terrible idea to talk to them without a lawyer present. They still have to do their jobs, and if you say something in the course of speaking with them that furthers their investigation, directly or indirectly, they're kinda obligated to pursue it. Even if they're the nicest person you've ever met.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've written that before on HN and got massively downmodded, hopefully that doesn't happen to you. If you are actually guilty then keep your mouth closed. But if you are not guilty then staying quiet is not necessarily to your benefit.
Please read the article. Whether you're guilty or not, you can be made guilty on various other charges from a simple conversation.
Of course, the officer can be asked their side of the story, which will be accepted as an eyewitness (single indirection).
So anything you say can (and will) be used against you y the prosecution, but almost never in your own defense. Many people understand at least the basic concept that your words can be used against you, but the fact that those same words cannot help you in most cases is not addressed very often.
(this topic is discussed in the famous - and VERY HIGHLY recommended viewing - video that hoaTeRo linked to, "Dont(sic) Talk to Police" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc ) )